Here is a reality check for the Romney/Ryan fans. First, unlike the so-called "All American" right wingers, intelligent and EDUCATED people in this country are willing to accept that Obama's presidency has not been peachy. He walked into a mess and has been overwheling. Second, when Bush (junior) became POTUS I do not recall any democrat leadership in congress going on national television admitting that putting Bush out of the WH was their "mission". If I'm so wrong then I invite anyone to correct me.

Finally, this article points out simple conflicting facts about SS and government programs. And you still point fingers at the POTUS? And when the rest of voters try to educate you, then we are called "liberals", and other ignorant names.

Is Obama the one really dividing this country? Or your ignorance has bogged your brains that much?

OMG, is TE going to do another disastrous endorsement like Bush in 2000? All this favorable coverage of Ryan/Romney, and a seemingly intentional disregard of valid and reasoned opposition by readers, leads me to believe that such a disastrous blunder may well be on the way.

2000: "The Economist, if it had a vote, would choose George W. Bush..."

In 2004, TE put Bush's face on the cover calling him "Incompetent".

Bush was bad, real bad, the worst President since Warren G. Harding, but Romney, a deeply flawed man with a huge downside, could be even worse. I encourage TE to stay out of the endorsement business this year. The mark of a competent organization is not whether mistakes have been made in the past but whether the organization learned from them.

This is a far cry from endorsement. I rather despise Ryan and more so Romney but I found this article to be incredibly fair and actually pretty brilliant. Ms Walsh makes a poor argument and should be berated for it; TE makes a more sound one. If anything the Republicans who read this will be better informed about the ridiculous rhetoric their candidates spew all over the networks to appease the "burn the White House" segment of the party and the Dems who read this should not see this as glowing praise for Ryan. Granted, there are an unsettling number of articles about Ryan but after all, this is newspaper that wishes to stay in print (as most do) and Ryan articles sell newspapers at the moment.

It wasn't a brilliant argument, because the Occupy Wallstreeters aren't hypocrites.
Further, even if they were, the author says that two wrongs make a right. They don't.
It's fundamentally flawed to justify one hypocrisy with another one, but exponentially more so, if the second hypocrisy does NOT exist at all.

"Ryan articles sell newspapers at the moment."
So, lies and distortions are justification for selling papers? We are truly doomed.

"Similarly, it's hard to find the objectionable inconsistency in Mr Ryan paying for school with Social Security survivor benefits, and then later arguing for reforms to the pension system he sincerely believes would have allowed his father to leave his family with even more." So writes the Economist magazine meretriciously sliding in an assumption as if it were axiomatic truth.

What makes you believe that a lower-middle class worker who dies in his mid-50s would have built up a private pension plan (from the puny social security taxes NOT withheld) to provide for his family in a way that was more generous than the thousands of dollars a month that his dependents received from the government? Do your math carefully!

Actually, I can't relate to Rand at all. I love my fellow men, want to see them succeed and believe they are worth my efforts. Hence why I founded & singlehandedly coordinated the Bank Transfer Day movement.

I will say Rand was clearly intelligent. It's unfortunate she chose to walk the path she did. She could've contributed wonderful things to the world.

It is guys like Paul Ryan who want co-opt capitalism into a new mysticism. They do not understand Capitalism and never will. Capitalism is about free trade between free individuals trading the product of their minds for that of others. A mind cannot be forced to produce anything new or to be truly creative—it can only be forced to buy the chains that would allow its’ masters can go on living in their evasions that their force can accomplish anything. If a person’s reason is compelled against his will, (e.g., for any “higher purpose”), the man so compelled will necessarily produce less than his all. At the minimum, such a mind is conflicted—at a maximum he is actively working against those that force him. These are basic facts of nature, and consequently, of capitalism. Force and capitalism are organically antithetical—unless “capitalism” has been reduced to a mere formal mysticism—which is a very real possibility with people like Paul Ryan. Ryan answers to his invisible friend in the sky, who gives him the inside scoop on how the rest of us should toe the line. He is willing to go so far in violating the minds and rights of others that he is willing to restrict reproductive rights. How much farther can you go in violating the minds of others than to tell them what they can and cannot do with their own bodies—unless you believe in a separation of the two, which contradicts BOTH capitalism and Objectiviasm?

It is guys like Paul Ryan who want co-opt capitalism into a new mysticism. They do not understand Capitalism and never will. Capitalism is about free trade between free individuals trading the product of their minds for that of others. A mind cannot be forced to produce anything new or truly creative—it can only be forced to buy the chains that would allow its’ masters can go on living in their evasions that their force can accomplish anything. If a person’s reason is compelled against his will, (for any “higher purpose”), the man so compelled will necessarily produce less than his all. At the minimum, such a mind is conflicted—at a maximum he is actively working against those that force him. These are basic facts of nature, and consequently, of capitalism. Force and capitalism are organically antithetical—unless “capitalism” has been reduced to a mere formal mysticism—which is a very real possibility with people like Paul Ryan. Ryan answers to his invisible friend in the shy, who gives him the inside scoop on how the rest of us should toe the line. He is willing to go so far in violating the minds and right of others that he is willing to restrict reproductive rights. How much farther can you go in violating the minds of others than to tell them what they can and cannot do with their own bodies?

Yes, hyperbole is all very well, but do these dubious ideologies actually work? Do they deliver? All countries are ideologically compromised because religion, economics and politics are not an exact science, none of them are able to predict, unlike Physics or Chemistry the outcome of any experiments with precision or predictability. Government is the art of compromise, something the current followers of Ayn Rand seem incapable of doing. If Romney/Ryan do get into power and fail to compromise, then I see a big fall into disaster. Personally I am quite cynical about their sincerity, I fully expect them to push the button of the money printing printing presses as soon as they get into power.

I don't know. Is this comment the absence of intelligence? Please name the fraud Mr. Ryan has perpetrated and the criminal behavior that makes him comparable to Bernie Madoff.

It's fire-and-forget comments like these, completely devoid of seriousness and critical thinking, that reaffirm my belief that the Left craves power by any means necessary, including random acts of intellectual dishonesty.

Let me walk you through it. Mr Ryan says one thing and does another: talks about deficits while creating them. Bernie Madoff told investors one thing and did another: said he was investing money but was simply paying older investors. It really isn't that difficult to understand. It would be like if a meth addict ran a drug rehab center.

Did Obama not promise to cut the deficit in half in the first three years of his presidency? How is Ryan currently creating deficits? What's the evidence that he is addicted to that behavior like a "meth addict"?

What does Obama have to do with Ryan? Try to stick to the topic. Obama promised to cut the deficit if unemployment was down and growth was back, but it wasn't. Reality should always supersede conviction unless you are a Mission Accomplished conservative. Then you should just imagine you are right.

Obama and his supporters are attacking Ryan for the same things they are doing, namely creating larger deficits, when Ryan wasn't in a position to influence the budget until January, 2011 and Democrats have been in control of spending from 2007 to this day, because they still have the Senate and White House. Obama's record as president is what is up for referendum in November; not Ryan's. So how is that not relavant to the topic?

You want some reality? The crumbling welfare states of Europe. We're on that path, my friend, and Obama is taking us there faster than the Republicans of 2001-2009. I wish there was an ideal major party, but Obama's Democrats and their multiple trillion dollar deficits are making Bush's Republicans look somewhat responsible by comparison.

Paul Ryan has been a voting member of Congress long before 2011 and what did he vote for? Bigger deficits.

The November election is between Obama and Romney, which means it is a referendum on do-nothing Republicans with Swiss bank accounts who steal pensions as well.

You wouldn't know reality if it bit you on your ass. Germany and most of the northern European countries export more than the US. Yes, Norway, Denmark out export the US. Republicans would be responsible if they paid for their incompetently run wars and policies, but like Ryan, all they do is blah, blah, blah - blame liberals like the losers they are.

I'm so tired of "If you aren't with us, you're against us." Someone critiques the actions of a politician and he or she is immediately thrown under a bus and labeled a "heartless conservative" or "spineless liberal."

This mentality is created & perpetuated by our political parties. We've allowed politicians to turn brother against brother, creating a political civil war. Tell me, what good is it serving you?

Learningenginner needs to go back to school as so man writers in Pail Ryan.It is ludicrous to believe that Paul Ryan deficits while creating them. No evidence in aggregate of eny kind. I agree
with Mamamaway that anyone can disclose any criminal actions even remotely to that of of Bernie Madoff. Learningengineer also proclaims that Ryan is a fraud. What would you call Obamma who promised that their were to be no tagalong to special interests when signing a bill? Obamma signed 74 of these special interest in the first day id office as well as sealed all his college regards.Who proclaimed the end of lobbies where as today twice as many walk the halls of Congress. Ryan has stated quite frankly stated that he himself had used social security payments because of hie father's death and in orderer to go to collage and that he has no desire to change it. On a similar question in the economist the other day hat his voucher program was not adjusted
for future inflation at panel of senior citizens rejected it. I would to. But the matter of it is, is that the Voucher program would be adjusted buy a blend of the increase in inflation and health care costs each year. Anyone 55 or oleo would not be affected by the plan while others have their choice of which plan to use. Extended illness or tragedies would be taken into account and they will be no no death panel of Washington bureuacrats deciding when someone some one lives or dies. Unfortunately the truth still holds, tell the public what they want to hear and eventually the
public would believe. When President Obama received his California scholarship it was only intended for foreign citizens. Obama declared he was not a US citizen and he was a muslin. Moreover, while Obama about plains about Ryan's plans to to away with entitlement programs. Obama must have forgot that the bulk of the money for the first tarp program and to get Obama care up and running came from Medicare...so who is tearing it apart? With Obama's attack adds being so low and untrue, I don'y understand where the lawyers are.

Learningenginner needs to go back to school as so man writers in Pail Ryan.It is ludicrous to believe that Paul Ryan deficits while creating them. No evidence in aggregate of eny kind. I agree
with Mamamaway that anyone can disclose any criminal actions even remotely to that of of Bernie Madoff. Learningengineer also proclaims that Ryan is a fraud. What would you call Obamma who promised that their were to be no tagalong to special interests when signing a bill? Obamma signed 74 of these special interest in the first day id office as well as sealed all his college regards.Who proclaimed the end of lobbies where as today twice as many walk the halls of Congress. Ryan has stated quite frankly stated that he himself had used social security payments because of hie father's death and in orderer to go to collage and that he has no desire to change it. On a similar question in the economist the other day hat his voucher program was not adjusted
for future inflation at panel of senior citizens rejected it. I would to. But the matter of it is, is that the Voucher program would be adjusted buy a blend of the increase in inflation and health care costs each year. Anyone 55 or oleo would not be affected by the plan while others have their choice of which plan to use. Extended illness or tragedies would be taken into account and they will be no no death panel of Washington bureuacrats deciding when someone some one lives or dies. Unfortunately the truth still holds, tell the public what they want to hear and eventually the
public would believe. When President Obama received his California scholarship it was only intended for foreign citizens. Obama declared he was not a US citizen and he was a muslin. Moreover, while Obama about plains about Ryan's plans to to away with entitlement programs. Obama must have forgot that the bulk of the money for the first tarp program and to get Obama care up and running came from Medicare...so who is tearing it apart? With Obama's attack adds being so low and untrue, I don'y understand where the lawyers are.

Thank you for being so incoherent and Birtherish. You do realize that everyone is a lobbyist. We all lobby the government for the things we want. It is Mitt Romney who thinks corporations are people and so long as they are people they cannot be restricted in their access to government thanks once again to your conservative Supreme Court.

@mamaway Ryan's plans entail reducing taxes for the very rich. This reduces government revenue. He refuses to say how he's gonna replace the loss of government revenue, except that he counts on increased growth. Several reputable economist have crunched the numbers and have said that the growth will be minimal from giving tax cuts to the rich.

That is why he's a fraud: He says he will decrease the deficit, but he's either not smart enough to realize that his plans wouldn't decrease it, but increase it, or he doesn't care. I'm thinking both: Even if he knew it was bad, he wouldn't care, because he's planning on giving himself some tax money via Big Corp.

Miss Rand like most of her followers loves her own fiction. She verbally throws herself and her followers down to the ground as the victims of some great government conspiracy that consists of what? Statism? The state is guilty of being the state? Takes your money by force? It isn't your money. The state prints it and backs it. No one is making you use money. You are free to use what ever you want. Rand has simply "imagined" that she is forced to do things because that fits nicely into her paranoid narrative.

Fool, money is an idea. Wealth is created by individuals who by the product of their ingenuity and effort create wealth. A standardized means of transferring this claim upon another person's labor of the mind and body is called money. This usually comes in the form of a scarce resource whose value is determined by its scarcity to limit its dilution (i.e. gold). Well, historically speaking, that is. Allowing the "state" to unfairly piggyback on this process destroys wealth as money created off a printer and not backed by actual wealth processes have just about as much value as the polymer-cotton blend it's printed on. You wanna believe that the "state" has a right to create imaginary wealth backed only by the incredulity and generosity of other men? Go ahead. But don't expect the rest of us to buy into your voodoo.

Reagan backed our currency with wheat, which the Russians had no problem with. Yes, paper money is printed, but it can be backed with any commodity that is of value at any time. Finally, the market doesn't care about your printer accusations for that is all they are. The generosity of other men? Imaginary scenarios always fit perfectly into a predetermined narrative. How is your manifesto coming along?

No, no, money is several things. A unit of valuation, a means of exchange and a promise (debt).

The state mainly sets the first two, but only enforces fulfillment of the latter to BANKS. It is the banks who piggy back on every transaction, including the act of printing money (they get 6%). They are the one's for whom fractional reserve banking exists. The problem of money as debt preceded government involvment, and hasn't changed it's existence other than to prop up the situation so that inevitable default is much more severe. Banks need debt in order to ''create" money.

"The force of this line of thought escapes me." As does the argument itself: it has nothing to do with a suggestion that Ryan should have minimized his participation in government programs he doesn't believe in. The argument is that the core of his belief is an assumption that a completely unregulated capitalist system will naturally allocate rewards to the most "deserving" among us, while Ryan himself depended on assistance to succeed. That he required help from society is only the tip of the iceberg: this is an old form of delusion, back to J.P. Morgan's claims that he owed society "nothing," that ignores our mutual interdependence and the fact that by definition financial success relies on the society which allows and defines it. Possession is not ownership: ownership requires society's permission. Rand did not understand this, and Ryan still does not.

A.Lost my father when I was age 4
B.Also received Social Security
C.Also went to Miami University using my survivor benefits

I am struck by Paul Ryan’s total lack gratitude from this benefit of being a citizen of the United States. Paul Ryan did not receive a scholarship, but more of a grant from Social Security that enabled him to escape his plight. In my case it enabled me to escape poverty. Also, Paul Ryan came from a rich family and by all accounts did not need Social Security to go to Miami University. This may explain his lack of appreciation. I am thankful every day for this great gift.

The man sleeps in his office on a cot, not just to save money (while people like Harry Reid stay at the Ritz), but to spend more time devoting his skills to solving his country's fiscal problems. That's not an act of gratitude? Who do you want him to thank? FDR??

Let's suppose that sleeping on a cot and dwelling on the deficit somehow made one worthy of the White House. What you're saying is, he did alllllllllllll that cot sleeping, and alllllllllll that thinking, and the best answer he could come up with is to hand a big tax write-off to the wealthiest Americans while cutting the social safety net in the name of self-reliance and supply-side economics? And this is the guy I'm supposed to vote for? I think not.

Only a hypocrite could be nominated by today's GOP, which exists to enrich a tiny sliver of wealthy oligarchs at the expense of everyone else. Admitting as much would not get votes, so the Republi-cons are happy to dissemble. They have no problems promoting gigantic lies--like Ryan's so-called budget--but hypocrisy is only the mildest of criticisms. Totalitarianism, racism, warmongering, inter-generational theft, social divisiveness, and treason are also hallmarks of the radical neo-cons this paper wrongly calls "conservative."

Sure, it's exactly the same thing... except no one at OWS was complaining about Apple, a company with a CEO but very few other employees in the 1%, or arguing in favor of anarcho-syndicalism.

If you can't see the difference between Apple, a company that makes useful products, and say, a bank that makes money by laundering Iranian oil money or Mexican drug money or fixing LIBOR or rigging muni bond bids, you're just not trying very hard.

If OWS was complaining about the gov't funding tech research you'd have a point. If Ryan was proposing getting rid of ag subsidies or other things he didn't use, you'd have a point. But they're not.

You're right, Apple's products are vastly more useful than the service that banks provide. I don't know what I'd do if I still had to carry around a seperate cellphone and MP3 player. Much moreso than the fact that they schlep around iphones, I have always been terribly amused that people who chant "smash capitalism" (which obviously not all of the OWSers did) relieve themselves in portapotties.

No, you're right. Those credit default swaps and Negative Amortizing Loans have done so much for the community. Shame on us. Who are we to question a little Libor-fixing and money laundering for Iran? Go capitalism.

I can't agree with you. He is a hypocrite. Its not just because he uses the system he wants to "reform". Its that, for one, the system "as is" made him who he is today (paying for his schooling) and his "reforms" would change how it worked to make him who he is today. It's one thing to say "this thing is fundamentally good but needs changes to make it more sustainable". It's another thing to say "this thing isn't fundamentally good and needs fundamental change". Ryan is saying the latter, despite the fact that it made him who he is today. That's hypocrisy. Medicare as a voucher program would not be the same kind of Medicare that allowed Paul Ryan to get an education or allowed Ryan's mom to use it.

First of all, I don't know of anyone who has not reconsidered at least some of their views since University. It would be absurd to assert that everyone who went to public school has to be a liberal by virtue of the benefit of the public education they received. It is only through education that they were able to develop their fundamental opinions about the world around them!

Second, going to public school is mostly a reflection of one's parents as opposed to the individual in question. Most High School and University aged students are not independently wealthy or mature enough to properly weigh the decision of going to public vs. private school. We can safely assume that Mr. Ryan's parents sent him to public school because a) they did not oppose the principle, b) they had limited means, c) they did not see the value added in private school, d) they did not believe in the importance of education, e) they were incentivized by the circumstances prevailing at the time to opt for public education, or f) they felt entitled to public education by virtue of the tax dollars they were forced to pay. The list is not intended to be exhaustive, but it illustrates the point: The decision is a reflection of the parents, not the student.

Third, considering Rand's argument (which applies to situations where one's concurrent views, as opposed to past views, appear to contradict their behaviour) is not applicable in this instance, it would be difficult to imagine any logical individual who wishes to be educated to refuse education made publicly available to him (for which his parents have presumably made contributions towards) on philosophical grounds (assuming Mr. Ryan held his current views at the time prior to becoming a university student), opting instead to remain uneducated.

Fourth, had the public education regime not been in place at the time of Ryan's birth, it is highly likely that his parents would have made different choices with respect to his education funding (i.e. they would probably not leave him uneducated). Perhaps they would have used their saved taxed dollars, or maybe they would have trimmed their discretionary spending. The reason they did not do these things is because these counterfactual conditions did not exist at the time. Likewise, it is equally unjust to criticize Ryan's life circumstances for being inconsistent with his own (reported) views, because his own views were not the prevailing regime at the time.

Against the standard of "hypocrisy" that you imply, we would all fall short of ethical behaviour.

Well, then one ought to be against any kind of social order. Because, one of the tenets of a social contract is that you willingly or unwillingly give away some rights for the benefits of living in a society. Otherwise, why should I obey the speed limits or not smoke anything I want? To go by the precept of this article, are my rights not being impinged by these constraints? One cannot and should not indulge in self serving polemics.
If Ryan is against public education or social security, he should have always practiced it. He should have seriously disavowed public education and refused social security. Participation in that social contract amounts to tacit acceptance.
Isn't it like a mid 19th century person saying that he practiced slavery while it was legal but turned against it after it was banned? I know this is an extreme example but this is the stark kind of example one needs to give if we have to bring morality back into politics. You don't oppose something only because it is convenient - you oppose something only because it is immoral or unethical. By that measure, if Paul Ryan thinks of public education as wasteful, it should have always been so for him and not after he has partaken of its fruits.
Otherwise, it will be akin to a certain president that exhorted his army to go fight against a mythical enemy while himself having dodged his own call of duty. What is good for the goose has to be good for the gander. Heads I win, Tails you lose can never be a viable proposition.

Funny - I'm reminded of a little snippy annoying female administrative officer (secretary with a commission) at my last base.

She had never deployed herself but consistently berated everyone about the importance of deployment readiness. She even berated guys who had just returned from Afghanistan and Iraq, been injured on the deployment, and were recovering from surgeries for their "lack of deployment readiness". She had spent all her time in the military wearing the costume and flying a desk but had never led troops or actually done anything. Because she was so political, bitchy, and backbiting, she somehow got away with it. Everyone despised her but no one wanted to do anything about it.

Anyway, when her number finally came up for deployment, this little rodent who had for years berated people about the importance of deployment readiness, pulled some strings, or used her knee pads, shifted to a permanent reserve position, and weaseled out of the deployment.

To me, that is Paul Ryan - he talks the talk - everyone should cut spending but me. Everyone should pay taxes but me. It would be comical if it weren't the truth.

Paul Ryan has been feeding at the teat of government since he was a teenager. His infatuation with Ayn Rand certainly guided him in protecting the wealth of his family inheritance from taxation. His votes in Congress show that the only welfare he is concerned with is that of private government contractors and corporations.

The more I read Ayn Rand's philosophies the more I realize that she was a complex mesh of contradictions. Paul Ryan fits into that schema as he was a "big time spender of public largess" while operating as a "fiscal conservative."

Paul Ryan is a hypocrite because he proposes more benefits (and less taxes) for those 55 and over, his target voting block, and a loss of old age benefits for those 54 and younger. If he were to propose siginficant cuts in old age benefits for today's seniors right now, rather than continuing a one-sided generational war, I'd think better of him and his plans.

But the Democrats dare not criticize his plans on this basis. Because they share his judgement of the values of Generation Greed.

The entire Republican party is hypocritical, none more so than the brainwashed Tea Party. As an Ulster man with a keen sense of pride in our exports to the US, like Francis Hutcheson, who overwhelming influenced the Founding Fathers, particularly Jefferson, I am disgusted to witness the perversions rampant in the US today and fuelled mostly by Republicans.

Specifically how are they 2-faced? Money. Republicans preach small government and neo-liberal capitalism. How alarming then to see that the firms who bankroll Rep. Inc. are one and the same as those firms who benefit the MOST from government interventionism. Your Republican candidate will stand in front of the TV cameras and lament Social Security, "Obama" care and every other state expenditure, while their corporate sponsors pour billions of dollars in to their campaign funds and "invest" billions more lobbying (aka bribing politicians with fine dining, golf membership, free cars, TV time and favourable media coverage).

The most obvious hypocrisy must be military spending, however, with Republicans the guardian angel of anything Virginia, White Sands or Pentagon. Personally I believe a large part of our technological revolution as a species is fuelled by the US military, and, while I may not always agree with how the military is used, projects such as FCS (future combat systems) will no doubt change every aspect of life on planet Earth for the better in years to come. Not just for the US either. I digress but the military is part of the gov and Republicans want a small gov, so why do they give military contractors a blank cheque? The answer of course is military spending equals votes from all those connected to, supporters of, and working for the largest public-sector enterprise in the world (NHS? no sir).

Basically, from my perspective, I see Rep. candidates sell themselves to the American people as old-school purveyors of justice, equality and the common man, while every action they take off-camera sees them sell justice to the highest bidder; practice equality only for the white and the rich; and employ strategies that deliberately erode the wealth and pride of the American middle classes, package it up, and deliver it to the top 1%.

As a well-educated white man with Irish roots and a love for the military, I should be a nailed on Republican voter. How sad that I would rather vote for a man who supports gay marriage and sings on TV than any Republican.

Prediction for the future....if a Republican takes office the first thing they will do is dig a big hole (literally) between the US and Canadian. This will be an enormous multi-billion dollar project. Those who construct the pipeline will be Rep. firms. The party will allow them to shift their tax burden onto consumers. The final result will be that some exceedingly rich folk will gain immense wealth and the American people will be left with a steaming pile of turd that future generations will have to clean up. Oh, and all that money won't be invested in renewable energies so that after the Canadian oil has been exhausted, the US will have less energy security than it does now.

If you are an American I beg you to cast aside your prejudices and vote for a party (or Bernie Sanders) who will put the interests of all ethnicities and the middle classes of America above the (short-term) interests of the established rich, white man. The US will only retain its position as the world's powerhouse if its middle classes provide the economic strength and security it needs. To keep giving up your Constitutional rights, which a million of you died to create and protect, to the established elite is a travesty that makes my soul bleed every day.

Good post, I'm convinced that the GoP will turn on the money printing presses as soon as they have disposed of the upstart Obama who offends their sense of entitlement and dependency on state handouts for corporate rapacity.

Ayn Rand accepted social assistance from the government, despite claiming in her writing to oppose it absolutely. She was also a militant atheist, does that fit in with the GOP (yeah lots of atheists there I'll bet!) She denied smoking caused lung cancer, a heavy smoker she got lung cancer.
Why do I bring these up, because methinks Mr. Ryan is a hypocrite and he is more able than many to ignore reality and so he shares that characteristic with Rand. Here is a man claiming to want to reduce the role of government, but looking at his voting record he has consistently done the opposite. The item easiest item to cut in the U.S. budget is their hugely bloated military budget, he recently voted to increase spending for it and his budget continues to splurge more money each year on it. He claims to be slashing spending on Medicare, yet his spending promise is mathematically identical to the most recent Obama budget (GDP plus 0.5% per year, some cut!?!). Of course he is not alone in hypocrisy, his party is the one that brought on the trillion dollar deficits and now base their election on Obama having a trillion dollar deficits, and who now want to make that even worse by bringing in more tax reduction prior to making any spending cuts: indeed their "massive cutting program" plan actually raises spending significantly.